Date: Feb 6, 2013 12:17 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Finite Rings

In article <1e22793d-04b3-4177-a715-64f05e235817@googlegroups.com>,
Tonicopm@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 5:13:50 AM UTC+2, William Elliot wrote:
> > On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Arturo Magidin wrote:
> >

> > > > Yet the problem still remains problematic.
> >
> >
> >

> > > No, it does not. Under the standard definitions, the zero ring is not a
> >
> > > counterexample because either (i) it does contain an identity; or (ii)
> >
> > > it is not considered a ring by those that require 1=/=0.
> >
> >
> >
> > Rant and rave, depraved unto grave,
> >
> > while the trivial becomes dead prey,
> >
> > the original problem still rings,
> >
> > with no one dinging a ping nor daring a fling.

>
>
> Er..."rings" doesn't rhyme with "fling" . Try again, please.


Neither do "grave" and "prey" for that matter.
--